'Virtual' child pornography (1 Viewer)

[Frigid]

Brave new world or virtual pedophile paradise?

When is child pornography not child pornography? Can an "avatar" commit a crime? What is real, and what is not?

These are questions being asked amid an emerging under-age sex case in online computer game Second Life.

Second Life is an internet-based virtual world with 6 million players worldwide — including about 5000 in Australia — in which players custom build a representation of themselves (an "avatar") by choosing looks, age, gender and colour. Second Life players can earn real money by buying land, earning rent and selling goods. Mostly it is good, clean fun. But like real life, sex is popular.

Now German prosecutors are trying to find players who reportedly bought virtual sex with other players, who were posing as children. A pornography investigation has ensued.

In Germany, "virtual" child pornography is illegal and punishable by up to five years in jail. In the US it is not a crime. In Australia it is somewhere between the two and is largely untested.

"This is a constant grey zone," said Monash University new media lecturer Brett Hitchins. Law was dictated by the country or the state but the internet was neither and there was no internet-specific law. "Like everybody, I think child porn is abhorrent," Mr Hitchins said. "But is this a real thing going on, or a fantasy? And if it's a fantasy, could it encourage or permit something real?"

There are adult and "teen" areas in Second Life but they are impossible to monitor. Some players dress up as children with no sexual motivation. But so-called "age play", in which players can enact fantasies with child avatars, has encouraged a growth in players posing as children in order to make money.

In Victoria, under section 67A of the Victorian Crimes Act, a person who engages in virtual sex with a child avatar or who deals in virtual child porn could be successfully prosecuted, lawyers said.

...

can it be argued that 'avatars', cartoon and other animated representation of children are not 'a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity'? after all, cartoons are not people.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

can it be argued that 'avatars', cartoon and other animated representation of children are not 'a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity'? after all, cartoons are not people.

The question is will they stop at animated representations?

 

[Omnidragon]

This whole illegality thing on child pornography disturbs me.

 

[hfis]

Wow, I had no idea that the NSW position on anything to do with child pornography was so harsh. Although it's a stretch to insinuate that it would actually be charged, technically under these laws, an author who writes an autobiography wherein they graphically recount sexual abuse sustained as a child - and let's face it, it'd offend the 'reasonable person' - would complete the offence.

Also, 'in a sexual context'? Exactly how wide is that to be construed? 'Jimmy went to the tuck shop. On his way he passed a brothel, where there were whores---' GUILTY!

I'm all for anti child porn laws, but these ones just strike me as a tad wide, that's all.

 

[Newbie]

what if my pentium II with a 10 year old graphics card renders the child porn animations at terrible frame rates so all i see is a mass of skin coloured pixels moving back and forth


...

 

[hfis]

They're not really too wide.

I didn't include the exceptions:

Ah, I see. Thanks for pasting those, it cleared a lot up. Original point conceded.

 

[Frigid]

see the problem is, even with the defences, i think the NSW (or Victorian) position is too wide.

i assume, for a moment, that possession/distribution of child pornography is criminalised because of the policy reason that it feeds the demand for the making of child porn, which amounts to sexual abuse of children.

on the other hand, how can it said that cartoons/erotic literature amount to the sexual abuse of children? no children are abused by someone drawing/animating/writing about such sexual acts.

edited: related - former Crown Prosecutor Mr Patrick Power granted bail after sentencing.

 

[sam04u]

I think any depiction of child-pornography, either graphical, or textual is just sickening. SMH at people questioning the law and whether or not it's fair for the pedos.

 

[Serius]

It doesn't matter.

In NSW, pornography includes cartoons and art, all the way down to literature and textual representations of child sexual activities.

It includes people who look <16 but aren't <16.

They have actually changed that since i remember looking at it months ago. It didn't have a "reasonable persons" requirement before, i'm sure.

Sounds like a thought crime to me, and definetely against free speech.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, it's 16 in NSW.

18 is a federal film classification which needs a whole pile of other requirements, but if i have porno on my phone or computer with 16/17 year olds having sex it isn't illegal.

werent you saying the fucking exact oposite in the teen DVD werribee thread? until i had to bring out the big guns and talk about the refused classification thing you were all for charging those dudes for "producing and distributing child pornography"

The offence is "possessing", not "viewing".

The files would be copied onto a floppy disk and viewed on a faster computer.

thats semantics, anything you view on a computer is saved, its called temporary files and even then it is very difficult to permanently remove from your harddrive[deleting and then emptying trash doesnt even do it]if they wanted to get you for this they would.

These people sound like a bunch of muslims, getting worked up over a cartoon. "virtual" child porn indeed, the 2nd life game is displayed on a flat monitor and its graphics are nothing special at all.

Whats the justification behind making the posession of child porn illegal anyway? i thought it was because of some sort of indirect, ziggidy zag way the porn was made which harmed the child so the end user is somehow responsible? how can this arguement even begin to be applied to cartoon porn?

go search family guy in any porn searcher, you will be shocked the shit that comes up, infact search any cartoon that has a female in it below the age of 18 and there will be some hilariously poor drawings of her doing all kinds of wierd stuff.

 

[sam04u]

Hmm...

child pornography means material that depicts or describes, in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person under (or apparently under) the age of 16 years:

So lets say a cartoon "character" was cloned really quick, with some contraption and because of that he's 11, but looks 25. Would that be child pornography? It's not even a person really... I say at the moment avatars and such aren't illegal.

 

[breaking]

what if my pentium II with a 10 year old graphics card renders the child porn animations at terrible frame rates so all i see is a mass of skin coloured pixels moving back and forth


...

sorry, was that supposed to be funny?

 

[Serius]

It's not criminalised because it feeds child abuse. It's criminalised because it glorifies the perversion of children (whether or not the image or text is real), which goes against societies standards (it's largely a moral law, yes).

Thats an ignorant law, in ancient greece women were typically married at 14. Muslims see no problem with marrying and having sex with a 9 year old. Morals arent absolute and they shouldnt be the sole basis for laws. If some pervert gets off on seeing a naked cartoon of meg having sex with quagmire then what business is it of us? Similiar fetishes go against societies standards like scat porn, BDSM, rape fantasies, chicks with dicks hell even gay porn is supposedly against societies standards...none of this is illegal.

Not really. It's designed to prevent people gaining gratification out of seeing children being defiled. They need to make it wide enough to include all circumstances, otherwise pedophiles (like all criminals) shall hide in the crevice of the rock where the law says the sun may not shine.

then wheres some similiar laws against necrophilia fantasy sites? or cartoons depicting sex with the dead, this is one of human societies most taboo crimes but its perfectly legal to talk about or draw a cartoon about right?

Victoria's laws are different. Also, that was a video of a crime being committed, and so its different legislation, and i think she was younger than the boys who were 17 anyway.

She was 17, the boys ranged in age from like 15 to 17. If you are going to take a stance of moral absolutes then you cant say australian morals vary so greatly accross state borders. My particular comment in that thread was about the charge of " producing and distributing child pornography"
heres what you said in this thread for reference

if i have porno on my phone or computer with 16/17 year olds having sex it isn't illegal.

which i agree shouldnt be illegal[and if it isnt then thats fine too] but what you said in that DVD thread was they the police were in the right to be charging them with producing child porn.

And they do get you for it.

The way the Microsoft Windows file system works is when you delete a file, it doesn't actually get deleted, the operating system simply "forgets" where the file is, and then waits until you transport a new file to the drive which then overwrites it.. but with large (100 GB drives) it can take months or years before this happens.
The only way to over come this is by completely filling a drive with useless data to over write the old data.. However, computer forensic teams, using magnetic and other technology, are still able to recover old files, even if they have been overwritten. But the more times it is over written, the more harder it is to recover.

I downloaded a file recovery tool and scanned my 3 drives, and i recovered files that i deleted in 2003. It was like a flash back in time.
Because it's the only thing the government can make a law against without infringing the freedoms of ordinary citizens doing ordinary activities.

I know how it works, if you wanted to make it difficult to recover data you would pass a high powered magnet over it and then stick it in the microwave for 1/2 hour. What you said was this

The offence is "possessing", not "viewing".

The files would be copied onto a floppy disk and viewed on a faster computer.

My argument is this is just semantics because there is no difference between possessing and viewing, the instant you watch it on your computer then you possess it, even if you had no idea what it was and closed it after a few seconds once you realised. All the loopholes in the law are completely subjective and can be placed on just about anyone [ as an example i would like to see them define art and obscene] so that anyone with connections [political, monetary] could easily escape such a charge, and anyone they really wanted to nail for political reasons [e.g say they wanted to get rid of pauline hanson because she is an embarassment] they could with ease because the law is that vague it is completely open to their own interpretation.

It's not illegal to have pics of nude kids on your computer.. Because parents often take nude pics of their kids at the beach etc.. and they don't have the intention of gaining sexual gratification out of it.

This is the original reason that i criticised these laws as thought crimes. If i had the same pictures that the parents had on my computer then i would be in big trouble. Why? because the law is about judging what you are thinking rather than what it is, its fine for the parents because they wont be thinking sexual thoughts when viewing the pictures, but anyone else doesnt have the same legal protection.

Very dangerous laws in regards to free speech [which is why it is legal in america, it would unconstitutional to ban it...and iam not even going to go into written text about child sex like the novel lolita, or diary entries or private written fantasies or anything]

 

[S1M0]

Child pr0n is just sickening, honestly. Who cares about whether its legal or not, if you look and enjoy Child porn, in any of its various forms, then you are a sick, sick person.

 

[marthastuart]

1 - It's all about representation, an individual who recounts their own personal experiences of being abused can not publish any explicit details.
2 - A 'reasonable person' would not get offended by another sharing their suffering, just disturbed if their heartless enough.
3 - Child Pornography in any way, shape or form is disgusting. This is, if anything, based on a maturity level as well as physical level. What allures people to this form of pornography is not the age, but the ideal 'innocence' of children, and the violation of innocence, the powerplay turns them on, not the possibility of sex.

 

[Serius]

1 - It's all about representation, an individual who recounts their own personal experiences of being abused can not publish any explicit details.
2 - A 'reasonable person' would not get offended by another sharing their suffering, just disturbed if their heartless enough.
3 - Child Pornography in any way, shape or form is disgusting. This is, if anything, based on a maturity level as well as physical level. What allures people to this form of pornography is not the age, but the ideal 'innocence' of children, and the violation of innocence, the powerplay turns them on, not the possibility of sex.

1. We arent talking about publishing a story here. Books and publishers are bound by certain laws, cartoonists or images created digitally and uploaded on the net, they dont go through a publisher.

2. This "offensive" term, please define it. Even if you can, i am amused that you beleive just because something is offensive, it should be illegal. Most australians are atleast a little bit religious. If i make comments to the effect of god being an imaginary friend and that jesus never existed many people would be offended, but this would be perfectly legal to say correct?

3. We are talking about cartoons here, even less its a game, no graphic pictures, shit i would be surprised if there was even an uncensored naked graphic in the whole game. Different people get off on different things, i would argue that if it was about powerplay then we should outlaw BDSM right now. Sounds like a complete overeaction to be calling it "virtual child pornography" its a published game that passed all rating laws before being distributed. Dont you think someone would have picked it up years ago if the game was genuinely offensive? if it was outlawed the effect on the gaming industry would be chilling.

 

[bshoc]

If its not a person, its not a crime, computer generated pixels don't have a human attribute.

Better these things happen in second life and not real life, and to animated pixels rather than some poor kid ..

 

[ElGronko]

Can any male on this board genuinely tell me that they haven't had rabid and graffic fantasies about savagely ravishing some glorious female, only to find out later that she is 14.





And then you have more vivid fantasies...possibly containing the pooper.

 

[Dr John Hewson]

can it be argued that 'avatars', cartoon and other animated representation of children are not 'a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity'? after all, cartoons are not people.

You've misread the article my small-texted friend. It's about digital shapes, not drawings.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Can any male on this board genuinely tell me that they haven't had rabid and graffic fantasies about savagely ravishing some glorious female, only to find out later that she is 14.

Yea see this is where I tend to agree with japanese morals somewhat... over there 90% or so of their porn involves rape, yet (at least official statistics show) they have a much lower rate of actual rape crimes in their country than we do. Another large percentage involves children/schoolgirls yet again there isn't the crimes against these children etc.

Of course this is cartoons/actors playing younger people, not actual child porn.... In these cases I can see how you could argue it might very well prevent acts of rape/pedophilia by providing an outlet for these people's fantasies.

Flame on johnny fantastic.

 

[fernando]

"japanese morals somewhat... over there 90% or so of their porn involves rape"

what do you mean their porn 'involves' rape?